Local missing persons sites

Archive

Categories

My blog has recently been added to Blog Nation, which is part of one of the largest networks of blog directories on the Web. Please visit my blog's personal page to vote for my blog and comment to other blog users.

Visitor map

Countdown to sentencing: Hearings for Drew Peterson’s murder and wrongful death cases – then sentencing

S.A. James Glasgow does not want to appear as witness at Drew Peterson hearing

Next week Drew Peterson is scheduled to be sentenced for the murder of Kathleen Savio.

Although his attorneys have filed a motion asking for an acquittal and a new trial, it’s predicted that the motion will be denied on February 19th and then the sentencing hearing can be held and finally Drew Peterson will be sentenced on February 20.

As the days tick off, last-minute filings continue to trickle in.

State’s Attorney, James Glasgow, filed papers requesting that he not be called as a witness at the hearing for a new trial, claiming that “a prosecutor, judge or news reporter is a ‘special witness'” in his filing, and saying that he should be told what information is needed from him and that Peterson’s defense should attempt to get the information some other way.

Meanwhile, a status hearing for the wrongful death civil suit being brought against Drew Peterson by Savio’s family was continued to coincide with the date of the next pre-sentence murder hearing. Joel Brodsky has filed papers to withdraw from representing Peterson in that matter as well, but the Judge Michael Powers decided that both Peterson and Brodsky should be present for the hearing and that it would be more convenient to hold proceedings at the Will County court-house.

I also wanted to share this completely charming drawing and account of Wednesday’s civil suit proceedings posted to Twitter by The EQ Alert Guy. Let’s hope that the introduction of cameras to the courtrooms of Illinois never does away with first-hand observer reports like this one:

Post navigation

95 thoughts on “Countdown to sentencing: Hearings for Drew Peterson’s murder and wrongful death cases – then sentencing”

I am just looking forward to these past 5 or 6 years being over with and he is finally where he belongs, without the current bennies of being in jail vs prison. Shut the door and throw away the key. Forward and on to justice for Stacy

Promising a professional, ‘compelling’ argument for a new trial for the mommykiller doesn’t prove squat about SG’s concern for the victims and their families nor any realisation of anything at all except his own reputation in peril.

Announcing that you are going to be professional? What an odd thing to say. Does that mean all the other times when you acted like a jackass, is because you didn’t announce that you were going to act like a professional human being?

The hearing on post trial motions in People Vs. Drew Peterson (09CF1048) is scheduled to begin at 9:30 a.m. on Tuesday, February 19 in Courtroom 407 in the Will County Courthouse, 14 W. Jefferson Street, in Joliet, Illinois.

Judge Edward Burmila has stated that if defense motions for a new trial are not granted, the parties should be prepared to move forward immediately with a sentencing hearing. Judge Burmila has set aside two days for the proceedings.

The Will County Sheriff’s Department’s Security Division is making provisions to accommodate the press. The overflow room with audio will be available across the hall in Courtroom 400 and will function in the same manner it did during the trial.

• Reporters will be allowed to use lap top computers and cell phones during the hearing in the overflow room only.

• No photographs, video, or audio will be allowed in the courthouse.

• No electronic equipment will be allowed in Courtroom 407.

• Lockers will be available for reporters to secure their laptops and cell phones if they will be in Courtroom 407.

• All reporters will be required to have a valid Will County Sheriff’s Office media credential to access the courthouse through the southeast doors and to access the overflow room.

• Media without proper credentials may access the courthouse through the northeast doors but will not be allowed to have electronics in their possession. The courthouse opens at 8:30 a.m.

The Will County Sheriff’s Security Division asks media outlets to advise if they will attend so proper seating can be arranged. Please confirm your attendance at: khoffmeyer@willcosheriff.org or (815) 727-5681.

All Will County offices are closed Monday, February 18th, in observance of President’s Day. Sheriff’s Office and State’s Attorney personnel will not be in their offices to handle inquiries that day.

yes he did facs….it really upset me…actually I used another word but I’ll spare you of it….my other pet peeve is…it was an ax e dent….and the sooner they take responsibility and start acting as defense attorneys are suppose too..the better off this team will work together…stop trying to be media whores…and get down to business…DP has already missed enough
fun days in the penitentiary…..

Sue left a message on her F/B page….they are coming in for the hearings…it makes a body feel good to see all their supporters there for them …..to be able to say to him what has been mounting over the years….is it closure…I so hope so…

Last-ditch effort for Drew Peterson attorneys
Lawyers will argue for new trial days before sentencing in murder case

By Steve Schmadeke, Chicago Tribune reporter
February 17, 2013

…Besides the prospect of former Peterson attorney Joel Brodsky being questioned by his defense team nemesis Steve Greenberg, the hearing is expected to include testimony from a retired judge, Brodsky’s former law partner, a Peterson murder trial observer, a law professor and perhaps even Will County State’s Attorney James Glasgow.

…

Brodsky said he isn’t worried about testifying, whether prosecutors or the defense team call him.

“I’m not concerned at all. Everything I’ve done is aboveboard and the right thing to do,” he said. “I just wish they (the defense team) were focusing more on their client and not on some personal vendetta.”

Trial court judges rarely grant motions for a new trial, but no one was making predictions for how Judge Edward Burmila will rule.

“This one I believe has some teeth to it,” Peterson attorney David Peilet said of their motion for a new trial. “This case presents constitutional issues that could change the whole landscape of due process. There are really some monumental issues, primarily the hearsay issue.”

Jurors and legal experts said the hearsay statements from Savio and Stacy Peterson were crucial at trial, as no physical evidence tied Peterson to Savio’s death. The statements were allowed under common law provisions for hearsay, not through the hearsay law pushed by Glasgow before the trial.

Peterson’s defense team also will focus on attorney-client privilege, clerical privilege and marital privilege issues in arguing for a new trial.

Assuming Burmila denies the motion for a new trial, the case will move to sentencing, where prosecutors will point the judge to the record of Peterson’s past of domestic violence while defense attorneys will argue that Peterson was a longtime Bolingbrook police officer with no criminal history.

His son, Stephen Peterson, who is raising his father’s two children with Stacy, is expected to testify for his father during the hearing.

Prosecutors may point Burmila to testimony given during a lengthy pretrial hearing in 2010 by Peterson’s oldest son, Eric, who testified that his father once dragged Savio into their home by her hair and arm, and Peterson’s second wife, Victoria Connolly, who testified that Peterson once held her against a garage wall by her throat and said he could kill her.

The bathtub where the body of Drew Peterson’s third wife was discovered became an essential piece of evidence in the former Bolingbrook police sergeant’s murder trial.

What trial watchers and Will County taxpayers may not have known was that the county had been paying $75 a month to store the bathtub in a Channahon storage locker after it was removed from the former home of victim Kathleen Savio in 2009.

The tub was never brought into court, which was the original plan. But the bathtub’s storage rental fee was one tiny piece of the county’s bulging price tag to prosecute Peterson.

That case, combined with the successful prosecution of convicted family killer Christopher Vaughn, cost taxpayers nearly $600,000, according to a Herald-News analysis of the expenses paid out of the county’s special prosecution fund. Vaughn, of Oswego, was ultimately convicted of killing his wife and three children in Channahon Township in 2007…

Numerous books were purchased for the trials, too.

One book, “From Crime Scene to Courtroom,” was bought because its author Cyril Wecht, a defense expert in the Peterson case, included photos of the Savio murder crime scene. Prosecutors wanted to know if the photos were obtained in some way other than normal trial discovery methods.

The book cost only $27. But other expenditures were much higher. Microtrace LLC in Elgin charged $18,812 to search evidence and analyze fibers in the Peterson case…

It cost the county $2,396 to fly Scott Rossetto to Chicago from Frankfurt, Germany in August. Rossetto, a friend of Peterson’s missing fourth wife, Stacy, was to provide crucial testimony — that Stacy told him she was to provide Peterson an alibi for the night Savio died.

But Judge Edward Burmila blocked his testimony after defense attorneys convinced him that discrepancies in the date and location of the U.S. Army captain’s conversation with Stacy made his testimony unreliable.

Some behind-the-scenes people were paid for services, but they never appeared in court. Private investigator Stephanie Finn of New Lenox, for instance, was paid $86,974 for her work on the Peterson case…

the hearing is expected to include testimony from a retired judge, Brodsky’s former law partner, a Peterson murder trial observer, a law professor…

So I’m guessing Stephen White and Reem Odeh for the retired Judge and the former law partner. Have to wonder who the trial observer might be. I can think of a few who directly witnessed some of Joel’s bad behavior in court.

Just so I understand, is there going to be a one-day “trial” wherein both the Prosecution (Glasgow) and the Defense (Greenburg, et al) present their case as to why there should or should not be a retrial….each side bringing up their own witnesses…with Burmilla ruling by the end of the day?

Sort of, Granny. It’s a hearing of arguments for and against the motion and it sounds like various witnesses (and/or evidence) have been subpoenaed. There’s no telling how long it might take. It could just be a couple hours, or spread out across a few days.

If Burmila denies the defense motion, then the sentencing hearing commences. And after that, the actual sentencing.

Brodsky’s motion to withdraw from the civil suit is scheduled to be heard at 11 am on the 19th so that’s another thing to consider.

It seems to me like it could all take longer than the two days that are scheduled…but what else is new!

Go on, Steve, you have the opportunity to play an absolute blinder by persuading DP to let Stacy’s family bring her home. That would be good. Your mom would like it, too.

Now that would be something!

In my mind, a defense attorney’s job is to protect their client’s rights, and defend them to the best of their ability. I think Steve is more than capable of doing that. I also believe they have a moral and ethical responsibility to not only their client, but to the justice system in general.

If he were to get DP to finally bring Stacy home, I think that would make him a very respectable human being, and attorney. :)

Seeing as Drew is going to end up spending the rest of his life in prison anyway, it would be kind of him to put an end to the lying about Stacy.

But the decision to confess is up to Drew. I don’t think an attorney can or should pressure a client to come clean about anything. They are working for the client. As far as defending Drew, I respect his lawyers’ obligation to do that.

However, I don’t think Drew will ever confess to what he did with Stacy. It would mean admitting to her children that he killed their mother and I don’t think he wants to be anything other than a hero to them – even though he is not.

I was thinking today about the motion for a new trial and how besides the issues related to Joel Brodsky, it also claims that Burmila made an error in admitting hearsay to the trial, and even wrong in allowing Joel to call Harry Smith to the stand.

Considering that Burmila is the one who is going to decide whether to grant or deny the motion, isn’t that just a bit silly?

I suppose it’s possible that they are just laying a groundwork for the eventual post-sentence appeals. But still…

Well, it can’t hurt to hope :-)! Maybe if there was some kind of fantastic plea deal on the table to avoid being prosecuted for Stacy’s murder. But IMO we can’t expect a miracle like that until Drew’s absolutely sure he’s out of appeals and won’t be able to weasel out of 60 years for Kathleen’s murder. How many years might it be, before he exhausts every appeal possible? :-x

But the decision to confess is up to Drew. I don’t think an attorney can or should pressure a client to come clean about anything. They are working for the client. As far as defending Drew, I respect his lawyers’ obligation to do that.

I agree!

Bucket, I didn’t know you had been married to a judge!

I didn’t either! Do you have any legal advice? :lol:

Well, it can’t hurt to hope :-)

Nope, it sure can’t. Like Facs said, he will never confess. Because that is an admission to his children. HE will NEVER do it. But sometimes, it doesn’t hurt to have hope. Heck, I still have hope that someone knows something, and after he is sentenced (if they haven’t already) come forward!

Will County State’s Attorney James Glasgow could be called to testify on Drew Peterson’s behalf as the former Bolingbrook cop fights to overturn the murder conviction Glasgow won against him last September.

And Peterson’s former defense attorney, Joel Brodsky, could be called as a witness by prosecutors trying to block that effort.

Even Peterson, 59, might finally take the stand as part of his last-ditch attempt to throw out his murder conviction for the 2004 bathtub drowning death of his third wife, Kathleen Savio.

Those courtroom fireworks all could erupt Tuesday when Peterson seeks a new trial, arguing that Brodsky single-handedly botched his defense during his five-week trial last summer.

If Judge Edward Burmila rejects Peterson’s request, his ruling would clear the way for the former police officer to be sentenced immediately to a hefty prison term for killing Savio nearly nine years ago.

That’s what legal experts say is likely to happen, though many acknowledge nothing has been clear or easy during Peterson’s long-running legal saga.

Still, convictions are rarely overturned because of allegations of ineffective counsel during trial — particularly when there are multiple attorneys involved, said legal experts not connected with the case.

During his trial, Peterson was represented by Brodsky and five other lawyers.

“It’s a tough sell with one lawyer. It’s a tough sell especially in this case because there’s six lawyers involved,” said Richard Kling, a professor at Chicago-Kent College of Law.

In their formal request to toss Peterson’s murder conviction, his reconfigured legal team placed the blame solely on Brodsky — an allegation Brodsky has bitterly disputed and one that spurred him to file a defamation lawsuit against former co-counsel Steve Greenberg and several media outlets.

Peterson’s filing contends that Brodsky alone called as a witness divorce attorney Harry Smith, who offered bombshell testimony that Peterson’s now-missing fourth wife, Stacy, told him that Peterson had killed Savio. Several jurors said after their guilty verdict that Smith’s testimony clinched their decision.

Peterson’s conviction should be overturned because Smith’s dramatic testimony potentially changed the outcome of the trial — a requirement for winning a new trial, Peterson’s attorneys argued.

“I think the facts and the law are on our side,” said Greenberg, contending that the number of lawyers on Peterson’s legal team doesn’t change what happened during the trial.

“If a decision was bad, it was bad,” said Greenberg, one of Peterson’s attorneys. During the trial, he publicly defended the decision to call Smith.

Other experts said it’s not so clear-cut.

Tactical trial decisions — including which witnesses to call — typically don’t result in verdicts being overturned, some experts noted.

“I don’t think it’s enough,” said Brian Telander, a former prosecutor and DuPage County judge now in private practice. “It was trial strategy, and even bad trial strategy doesn’t mean his counsel was ineffective.”

“Attorneys make decisions like that all the time. Sometimes they work, sometimes they don’t,” agreed attorney Kathleen Zellner, whothinks Peterson doesn’t have “even a slight chance” of winning a new trial.

Arguments over that issue could see defense attorneys trying to call Glasgow — who led the prosecution against Peterson — as a witness on his behalf.

Glasgow has been notified by Peterson’s attorneys that they may call him to testify, although Peterson’s attorneys won’t say why.

Last week, Glasgow sought to bar Peterson’s attorneys from making him testify. That issue hasn’t been settled.

“Our position is they want to go fishing — and that’s not appropriate,” said Charles Pelkie, a spokesman for the Will County state’s attorney’s office.

Glasgow couldn’t be required to testify about the investigation or prosecution tactics, so the only possible reason would be to question him about events that occurred outside the courtroom, experts said. Glasgow exulted outside the courtroom that Smith’s testimony was “a gift from God,” but his statement had no bearing on the verdict and likely wouldn’t lead to a new trial.

“It’s not an issue,” Kling said.

Brodsky, who left Peterson’s legal team in October, after the trial, also could be called as a witness on that issue — but by prosecutors.

He confirmed that he had been subpoenaed by prosecutors for the hearing, but would say little else, except to contend that he has emails showing that Greenberg and defense counsel Joe Lopez supported the decision to call Smith as a witness.

Greenberg would say only that “I expect that Mr. Brodsky will be testifying.”

But he was evasive when asked whether Peterson — who didn’t testify during his trial — might take the stand to detail whether he had a say in putting Smith on the stand.

“You’ll have to see,” Greenberg said of Peterson.

Calling Peterson to testify poses risks because the sometimes cocky, sometimes abrasive former cop probably could offer little that would help convince Burmila to toss his conviction, but he might say something that could irritate the judge just before he rules. With authorities still investigating his Stacy Peterson’s disappearance, the impulsive Drew Peterson also might blurt out something that could become evidence if he’s ever charged in that case.

“They should keep this guy quiet,” said Paul DeLuca, a former Cook and DuPage County prosecutor now in private practice.

If Burmila rejects the request for a new trial, Peterson faces an immediate sentencing hearing that will end with him receiving a 20- to 60-year prison term.

Prosecutors could push for a sentence on the higher end of that range by offering evidence linking him to the still-unsolved, 2007 disappearance of Stacy Peterson. He’s has been named a suspect by investigators but has never been charged.

But experts generally agree Glasgow has little to gain by disclosing whatever evidence authorities have tying Peterson to Stacy’s disappearance.

That could give Peterson’s attorneys another issue to raise when he appeals his murder conviction and could complicate matters if Peterson is later charged with Stacy’s disappearance and presumed death.

And at Peterson’s age, any prison term he receives — and most experts predict he’ll be sentenced to at least 40 years — means that without a successful appeal, he’ll die behind bars.

Of course I know it’s not SG’s job to persuade DP to cough up the only thing he’s any good for, but sometimes people may need reminding what it’s really all about. You know, the truth. And avoiding harming the victims any further.

I think I have mentioned The Judge before, but it will have been years ago now!

I see in Drew an anger that has been years in the making…he is a serial spousal abuser…as Glasgow said..he’s a bully and used his shield to harm people..that said …giving Stacy’s whereabouts will mean having to give up what he feels was his power and control…his remark of Kathleen ..I should have had her cremated…60 yrs…isn’t enough…

I didn’t hear all of the conversation but in general this is what Greenberg had to say.

Greenberg said that he’s not against all hearsay but thinks it’s wrong when a defendant is presumed guilty before the trial and hearsay is admitted on that basis.

When Joel called Harry Smith to the stand, “I wanted to crawl under the table that day and hide. It’s absurd.”

PINKUS: Why did Joel do that?

GREENBERG: “Clueless. I’m clueless. I have no idea.”

“I’ve done close to 100 juries, well over 1000 bench trials. watched at least a 1000 more. This is the worst moment I’ve ever seen in a a courtroom. Only moment worse was on an old Perry Mason rerun when someone takes the stand and says I committed the crime.”

PINKUS: Is there a rivalry?

GREENBERG:”Not between he and I. In his perspective it might be. He’s done some things that are laughable and accusations that are beyond belief.”

PINKUS: Was Joel Brodsky in over his head?

GREENBERG: “A fair statement. You got a traffic ticket once? He could handle that. Maybe he could get you convicted….Maybe he’ll add this to the defamation suit.”

PINKUS: How did you join the defense team?

GREENBERG: Brodsky asked another lawyer who was unavailable and that lawyer passed my name on. I joined the team three weeks before original trial date. Not enough motions were filed against the hearsay at the time. I must have filed 50 motions since then.

PINKUS: Drew Peterson should have shut up!

GREENBERG: “I don’t disagree. It’s not the strategy I would have followed. Peterson and Blago had the same PR agent. I have never hired a PR agent for a case. The old saying is ‘he who does not talk, walks'”

WHOA….everyday of that trial they stood in front of those cameras and laughed it up…he who does not talk..walks…how many times was he on in session with Beth…his voice was heard everyday …answering questions from the media…is their hindsight ….no way…he along with JB and JL made asses of themselves..and after the verdict …was annoyed with the signs and support…

GREENBERG: “I don’t disagree. It’s not the strategy I would have followed. Peterson and Blago had the same PR agent. I have never hired a PR agent for a case. The old saying is ‘he who does not talk, walks’”

Isn’t it interesting he mentions Blago as having the same PR (we all know who it is) as Drew and Brodders. Blago is an uncontrollable loudmouth, too.

Just by the by, the PR is someone I suspect as having another of JB’s quid pro quo arrangements.

Yes what was SG thinking? He couldn’t control himself for a few minutes without saying something actually defamatory about JB on air and continuing to bring their profession into disrepute? (What’s that you say? That boat sailed a long time ago?)

As for PR for accused murderers, when Amanda Knox and her boyfriend were arrested for the murder of Meredith Kercher in Perugia, the first thing Knox’ father did was to hire a big PR firm. Before hiring a lawyer. Stuart Higgins, former editor of the UK’s sleaziest tabloid The Sun (Murdoch), was immediately summoned to South Africa to represent Oscar Pristorius.

And while we’re hitting people with the “jerk” stick, let’s not allow “Dr.” Dan Budenz to get off without a good whack.

He’s the jerk who, though ten years out of Drew Peterson’s life, decided to re-insert himself when he heard about Stacy’s disappearance, invited Drew and Joel to his place in Florida and introduced them to Glenn Selig.

Then, not satisfied with the level of meddling, he went on to write his own, crappy, erroneous book about the Peterson case (while simultaneously marketing his own “online rehab” scam).

There is just no end of people who have hoped to profit from the death of these two women.

The plan was simple; if Drew was innocent he was already viewed as an O.J. Simpson type double murderer whose image would only improve with increased exposure. The plan was to expect and debunk all the misinformation and accusations that would be flooding in. Get in front of the cameras to assertively defend yourself and professional career as needed. Get the truth out and be as bold and accessible as the media and opinion journalists. Drew is a natural easygoing conversationalist who would be difficult to restrain anyway. Humor was to defuse the aggressive and false information flooding by some of the ethically challenged opinion media. Guilt making antics from those ‘close to the sources’ would escalate. All members of the team were clear to me except the financial adviser/accountant and agent. I provided a limited field of professionals for Joel to select as publicist and agents but many of the best I knew would not take this case and I did not even offer them up as a possibility because of that.

I had the privilege to introduce Joel Brodsky’s eventual recommendation Glen Selig to Drew when Drew and his four youngest children stayed at my Florida home with us in December 2007. Glenn was owner of the ‘Publicity Store” of Tampa, Florida. Glen got to see one of the homes we used as a safe house. Glenn was a very good choice by Joel.

I don’t even know where to begin after reading the latest from SG on the Pinkus Show. Ouch! Guess Joel isn’t one of the cigar club boys anymore.
I will look forward to reading all of the posts late tomorrow night. I can’t access anything at work.
I, too, wish Steven would come forward for the sake of Stacy’s family. How do you look at those two little ones every morning and not say anything? What an amazing gesture of moral character that would be. (I think everyone assumes he knows more.) Facs,I agree, Drew will never admit anything to the younger children.
Can’t wait to see tomorrow’s updates from my favorite group!

I am sure Drew is wondering why he has been convicted. It can’t possibly be his fault, he is way to smart, everyone else is too stupid. When he was doing his media runs I kept hoping he would slip up and give some clue as to where Stacy is. Hoping today is a banner day that leads to sentencing.

Drew Peterson’s longtime lead attorney could find himself on the witness stand today defending his decision-making and legal skills as the former Bolingbrook police sergeant’s attorneys argue that their client deserves a new trial.

Peterson, convicted last fall of first-degree murder in the 2004 bathtub drowning of his third wife, Kathleen Savio, is taking one more chance at winning a new trial before his scheduled sentencing Wednesday. The 59-year-old faces 20 to 60 years in prison.

He remains the sole suspect in the 2007 disappearance of his fourth wife, Stacy. Prosecutors believe Peterson killed her and have said they will ask the judge to weigh that when sentencing him. They may also bring charges against Peterson, who they’ve labeled a “thug,” in her presumed death.